A More Secular ‘ben-hur’ Is A Dud

Lew Wallace’s 1880 novel “Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ,” one of the 19th century’s biggest best-sellers, has been the basis for two classic Hollywood films. There was Fred Niblo’s 1925 version, starring Ramon Novarro, and the one everyone knows, the William Wyler version from 1959, with Charlton Heston in the title role. At the start of the film, Judah Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) is a wealthy Jewish prince, living in splendor in Roman-occupied Judea. In the novel and in the previous movies, a chance accident upends his life: A roof tile falls from his balcony and almost hits a Roman official. [...] a Jewish radical shows up out of nowhere and decides to use Ben-Hur’s balcony as though it were the Texas School Book Depository. There’s no mystery about it, no feeling of chance or fate, nothing to advance, even in a small way, a sense of magic or destiny. In place of the story’s spiritual element, the movie concentrates on Judah’s relationship with his childhood friend, Messala, only this time Messala is his brother, adopted by the Ben-Hur family. Add in the fact that Toby Kebbell is a much more forceful screen presence than Jack Huston, who plays Judah as almost guileless, and one really has to wonder about the movie’s strategy. Specifically, it has Morgan Freeman off to the side — wigged within an inch of his life as a wealthy African merchant — shouting instructions to Ben-Hur as he rides by. [...] though I wouldn’t swear to it, the movie seems to leave an impression that Ben-Hur actually hears him, over the roar of the crowd and the sound of galloping horses. Filmmakers don’t have to be religious, but they really should fake it if they’re going to make a movie like this. In another context, Ben-Hur’s suffering would be redemptive and ennobled by its being part of some master plan for the universe.